xt7j6q1sgr96 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7j6q1sgr96/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1954 journals 023 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.23 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.23 1954 2014 true xt7j6q1sgr96 section xt7j6q1sgr96 Progress Report 23 December 1954 l
` P / t' E °
V OPM (1 1071 SEIITICZ {QS
I
’ { K t é C t'
June 30, I954
POPULATION
· 500,000     I
.  = ·Z·
  LEGEND Q gg
400,000 (  I94O I95O I954  
300,000      
Is s   I  
       
.€ \ I =• s ir ? ·:¥ 
           
2°¤·°°°     ?%          
i i ..  .     ¢ §  -:¤  zi;   
·% \ ~% \ ;q §# . .~ q  és  #& \  Z·:    zz.- 
    %§ * rw  N   ¤ IN  M  ¥ § ·.  Is    
IP  N    i s   rw      :25   EEE    EEE  2 ii 
IOOIOOO if i  ,g.  Q \      .·Z   .£  ;.·   j:,  ‘ 5.  s ·j.  ;,g·§ 
          §§ $              
    .~.           · ~          
’  IE  N    A k I E In    § § I· §  Zi;    fig?   
. O  ?=52      IE E    Y?    -5: S   IE E :.— § "r$i  ’ ¢§=¥ 
L A B C I 2 30 3b 4 5 6 7 8 9
O METROPOLITAN ECONOMIC AREAS
AREAS
(For Economic Area Mop ond Index of Couniies,
_ See Poges I3 ond I4)
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON

 I PROGRESS REPORT 23 December, 195ik
`   ELSLTII-ETED POPULATICXQ JUIIE j_Q_, lQ§i>, HATIHAL INCREASE AKD
I ESTIMATED   MIGRATION APRIL l, IQQO, Q
’ J`L]I~L`E} }_Q_, l€}j?+, KENTUCKY, QQQ COUNTIES
4 Bj; Paul D. Richardson
I Deasnrtment 9; Rural Sociology;
I Kentuciry Agricultural Experiment Station
University of Kentucky
Lexington

 The State
According to an estimate made by the Department of Rural Sociology,
.. , , . l - , F, C ,-1,.
nentucgy s total population as of uune 30, 195b, was l,;nu,ooo. ine
estimated population at that time was virtually the same as the l950 U. S. *-
Census total population figure, 2,9MM,806. For all practical purposes, _
since the l95M figure is based on an estimate, there has been no net
change in Kentucky's population since l950. Annual estimates by the U, S. A
Census Bureau, however, indicate that there was a decline in Kentucky's ,
population of approximately 6o,ooo from l950—l952, but that the loss has l
now been regained.
The net loss tnyouyn migration for the period of approximately M I
years, ending June 30, l$jU, was 209,000, an annual loss of a little more
than U9,000 persons. The net loss through migration, however, was almost
comvletely offset by the gain in population through natural increase. The
  ,, ,,2  
excess oi oirtns over oeatns amounted to 20o,000 for tue jGTlOQ, or a V
little less than @9,000 per year. _
l. Includes U. S. Arm? personnel stationed in Kentucky and excluoes
military personnel with preservice residence in Kentucky. l
2. Que vital statistics data were provided by the Division of Statis-
tical Services, Lentucky State Department of Health, 620 South
Jnird Street, Louisville 2, Kentucky. The data for the first six —
;;nths of lyju are fra; preliminary reports, with adjustments made
to allow for incompleteness of these reports. Che State Department i
if Health will publish county estimates later based on complete
lgiw vital statistics.
- l -

 . · 2 ·
g The loss of population through migration is, of course, not a new
r I development in Kentucky; rather it is a continuance of a long-time trend,
and is to be explained, for the most part, by familiar factors. There is
a continuing movement from farms to cities, from agriculture to industry.
Because of Kentucky's relative lack of industrial centers, compared with
nearby states, thousands of Kentuckians have moved to business and in-
_ duetrial jobs outside the state, ·
` `_ . .‘ _ Pouulation Trend l$@O—l@§O
During the last intercensal period, April l, l9QO to April l, 1950,
i 1* 1. * | .. .. · ` · . . ·· 5 r' 3 ‘ ` · · —4 ·. » { · ·
~ 1:x€1loU.C1{y S QOj2L`Ll8.“ClOQ l1”‘C£‘¥.a.S€>O. $5,00]., In tgysg qg(;g__g_5 there wgyg 75j,1;L;U
k · · ;_ . J, -1 ·· ll v — • ;; ·w ·| /(‘
births and 23~,39l deatns~-an excess oi oirtns over deaths of Moo,O@9. If
_ Kentucky could have held this natural increaee, its population in l95O
would have b€9¤ 3.317.79¤· However the net loss of 372 88 throurh miqra—
` V t A 1 L; t.
tion during the decade drained off most of the gain through natural in-
crease so that the state's·population in l95O was 2,9@M,dO6.v
T This represents a gain in Kentucky's population during the inter-
censal decade of 3.3 percent, compared with no change during the past M
years, The average annual gain thrru h natural increase, 19QO-50, was
w u6,eoo, while during the past Q years the annual gain was n9,oo0. The
average annual net loss through migration for the lO year period was j7,300,
and during the past M years it was slightly more than @9,000.
° Based on the adjusted 1940 populrtion (;,5@9,?¤5}.
u' Cf, Brown, James S. and Richardson, Paul D., Uhanres in Kentuc%;"s
Pooulation gg Counties —· Katugal Increa;¤, »c,, ji` t.r‘-¤.·
;r»a remained virtually szat;¤~ary. Qnere was a wide vtriaticn in pcpulo~
tion changes in the 26 counties if bgis large Area. The change: ranged
‘ from a l6—percent gain in Boone Crznti to an 18-percent los; in Washington
‘ C:unt . Owl; six of tg: counoiec »·i_· AQlcd, while 20 lost, in population,
All ef the cpuntios that ;aL;eu had uroan centers or were located adjacent
to metropolitan areas. Eiyht rf tgo `,·» ounties lost more than lo percert in
go ulatlva, while six list le;< hZ»h j percent, The Outer *lmegracs Area
gf ; wi·le, oben, continued its T .*-iime trend of relative ttaollity in

 - 9 -
population size, declining slightly in the rural counties and in-
creasing in the urban areas,
Economic gggg Z (Inner Bluegrass Area) continued to gain at p
approximately the same steady rate as during the l9Q0's. Three of the _
eight counties in the Area had approximately the same population at the -
close of the M year period as they had at the beginning. Two counties _
gained approximately 5 percent, and three lost from 3 to 6 percent.
The two counties with the highest percentage loss (M.@ and 5.8 percent)
both have urban centers with a population of about 5,000, Obviously
the rural areas in these two counties are losing more population than
A the urban centers are gaining, None of the counties, including Fayette,
gained through migration.
Qgpngmic Area 8 (Cumberland Plateau Margin Area) which had the
heaviest loss among economic areas on a percentage, as well as numerical,
basis between 19MO and 1950 lost in population at about the same rate
during the past M years. Only two of the 17 counties (Elliott and Greenup)
in the Area gained in population. Losses in the other 15 counties ranged
from M percent in Powell and Lewis to 22 percent in Magoffin County. This .
Area with a great preponderance of families on small farms has lost a
steady stream of migrants during the past 1Q years. Many of these have ·
probably been lost to the Ashland—Huntington Metropolitan Area, and, more
recently, to the AEC development in nearby southern Ohio, •
Economic Area Q (Cumberland Plateau Area) had by far the heaviest
loss numerically of any other economic area during the past U years. The
Area decreased 58,ooo in population during that time. This heavy loss in

 - lO -
population occurred in spite of the high rate of natural increase.
. There was an excess of births over deaths during the period of M8,000,
L The net out—migration not only cancelled out the gain through natural
, increase but reduced the 1950 population by another 58,000. In other
words, the net out-migration (106,000) was more than twice the amount
of natural increase for the Area. Between 19UO and 1950 the population
of this Area remained virtually stable with a gain of less than one per-
cent.
0nly one of the'1Q counties in this Area gained in population
during the past Q years. Even this county, Leslie, had a net loss of
1,500 through migration, but the natural increase of 2,216 was great
enough to more than overcome the loss. Of the 13 counties losing in
population during the period only one had a loss of less than 8 percent.
Ten of the counties had losses of more than 10 percent. The greatest
loss in the Area, 16 percent, was sustained by Bell County.
Changes in Population By Counties
The changes in population, including natural increase and net mi-
gration, are set forth in Table 2. Thirty of Kentucky's 120 counties,
or one—fourth of the counties in the state, showed gains in total popu-
lation between April 1, 1950 and June 30, l95@%O Less than half of
these counties (lb counties), however, made net gains through migration,
Said another way, only lb counties made gains through both migration and
natural increase,
10 See Figure 2 (p.l9) for map indicating counties in Kentucky showing gain,
loss, or no change in population during the past U years,

 - 11 -
Four counties in the state have gained more than 25 percent since
1950; Ballard County gained 58 percent, Christian gained 50 percent, (
McCracken gained 4l percent, and Hardin gained 26 percent? Only 7 of
the remaining 26 counties making gains during the period had population
increases of 10 percent or more, I
As would be expected, Jefferson County had the highest numerical
gain (49,000) in population during the period. Natural increase, how- ~
ever, accounted for 37,000 (75 percent) of the gain. When increase in
population through migration alone is considered both Christian and
McCracken Counties made larger numerical gains than Jefferson,
Among the 90 counties with a loss in population since 1950, 45
(one-half) lost 10 percent or more, 28 lost between 5 and 10 percent,
and 17 lost less than 5 percent, Magoffin County with a 22·percent loss
in population had the highest percentage loss, Harlan County with a loss
of 9,700 had the greatest numerical population decrease among the counties,
The greatest loss through migration, without considering gains by _
natural increase was also in Harlan County (16,000). Pike with a loss of
15,000 and Floyd and Bell with a loss of 12,000 each were next,. lt is
interesting to note that three of these four counties had more than 50 per—
cent of employed males, 14 years of age and older, engaged in mining in
l95O}2 Changes in mining undoubtedly accounted for a large part of the
heavy losses in these counties,
ll' The reasons for these gains have been discussed before under
Economic Areas l, jb, and 4.
l2° These counties are Floyd, Harlan, and Pike; Bell County had
34 percent so employed,

 C The map on page 19 indicates clearlv that for the most part the
‘ counties that increased in population during the past M years either A t
contain or are clustered around large population centers. With the ex-
'W ception of Bell, Hopkins, and Warren, all counties having cities of
ld,OdO or more persons gained in populatiogg during the past M years,
— I C The trend from rural to urban areas is more evident when the location
of the counties that had net gains through migration is considered.
These counties are: Ballard, Boone, Bullitt, Campbell, Carlisle, l
Christian, Daviess, Hardin, Jefferson, Kenton, McCracken, Madison,
Marshall, and Oldham. It is evident that the long-time trend of con-
centration of the state's population in urban areas is continuing,
n I T
The {gain in Boyd County was less than l percent,

 . n
Q yn] -
-   ‘3
- i ··-•
3 §  
3 SA *°
. M
U 2 ·¤
__ . .. m ,
~ . O N
M %°
V .· , m
\     5 gé,
0 _ V _ »
. V \ ¤ ~  V ~ ·= S E
A` :°• `     V. Q H
. g U  _ l \ _ V 4 L p 'U
_\_ x _ \   _ . 3* ¤¤
_.   »§§ VV , ~ ¤ g §
\\ \ ‘· \`   V V »V V E €*~
\ ( \" 1 . ` ` VV
\`\ §\ { \ 0 O \, Q N Pc 0
xx \~V \ ~ V ~ ·-·
\~ \\¤. § \ \ V _ ° .¤
\       \  S gg  
  £§•:•,’,;•$_ \`§"\       __;· Q, 4;
-  '.¢I••‘•$‘$°•§•:•}%3   ·¤ 3
•Z°¥"•°•:%‘*~$••*»%$¢‘ >‘.N— ·V\ \\ · " "`
%••:&:•,;;:,‘»`•,,2,» x ve},   E U g
 $0 •·{•`¢; •• ‘ . ,5*0 ••:· “ ‘
.•••¢•~%•’ ••• •?   ~   '•‘*
€*;’:°€*3E@’   @:’:°&&$ `· ··~·< 2. 2 °°
 " L   ¤ V » ‘ wr P4? 2
  (3}.* V `D V IG Q) 0
N  _•      °  f V? 5 Q
  `»‘• •.*= , . 3% ‘· A , V 3
  _ ,§. •» A Q • `V _ O
 ‘•°• °•%¢°••€* ·•’x · v }•• ° ; `H E
, -•"•`·`£•:%o• •O$;••••;*·&i••1 _ q?i;`Q`° V _ E S F
  `i;¥Z?i·€, ~   g 8%
4%. ,  ?¢.i_•,g\ •••¢;:•,•,•“•,,V•,•,`1,,••   A V . 0
=> ·» 5+.% •4b ••••• ·• q$•*>`••’g%••#   3   ra "'°
··@,,•••»••\1·•••••%’•·F,•¢¢.&••Q     V ~ un
 `•q~t• ••;»••••9,•<·~ ••~ %•$   .   . ¤
 @$:44··*~:•&&•!e&}•!•!•§•$•2 ·-: .·V;·:·:;-:·: ·-·-···   VV   ..   .¤· €~··
q•••'y,¢•••$»'   *••••:¢ . _.   M   ··-• m
`;••°¢*;••’•·   ._·_ = V-·‘   ‘~.•  .·-:·2··;·2·.;-Z·.· .··:-Z·V:·i··;·1·   E ¤>
 { _;;VE‘;`;;.;1E;¤E¥     _·":·'   ·  .'·, -.'_·;,'_:_' 5 g
  ; iT    `:‘=?Zii" ‘E?%’.'#{"`   VV  “  »    .,  J E Z
.;,:.;:,1. ·   u:  _.::·_ 
4 i:?1·i:·‘·' A V·   S 5 Fg
-. ·,’¤·:,'u' 1) '¤ In ' '• ' · I I. '.• °~:•_'¤ d g
_ ;,·:_·, · _ :3-'_;_··;·.·_·..'_·..·_ I.-_ : qa •
A   V .-‘Z·Z·‘Z·1-‘Z·Z·‘Z-?Z·Z·Z·i·1-‘Z·1  8* 5 g
    ‘ -1-1-·Z-;-1 -·-·‘-·.-‘-· -‘·i·°;·1; ·=· 8 2
F" h. _ . ; ,'_· .‘_-`,’_: ,'1·°_‘}'_i. In
2::-   °   S rg *9*
H •£:;EE;:   0 0 E V
E > : Z · 3 . _.::1::*::*.,:*::2, · · 1.:.:;. P 8
¤ I:’Z·¥   A 3
6 __  Z   O _P o '
:1 °° S fr S==’=· · ‘»‘· ‘ ··V· 1 -·&—·1·1»·1-1-<—;V-1 ~·V-  ‘ ,. VCV ·>
°§ ¤~ * ·;NZ;     g ¤> §
• :· .:-2:- ,   ~ V»-··V, . ¤¤
cr m  } .:§$E¥::' ‘·V” Eq A? g ¤>
r•:6Z$ \ {QZ? , i· V , °> 5
,••••¢ , _   ‘_ F` 'O
9•••·  .  ,, H
,•:••` \ ` 0 O
$• ••% K » . J .-• "*'
¢•!•·* · V V g .,,
»-• · w _
o "I '  ` 5 » J kl O 3
§ cx /    ? = ·•·’ 3
• , O-!
*3 ¤ °2 :r \._ V . ·s,· I
  “ ¤ ¢ n W ' · I
as ° 5 · O ~ ··*
A E O O m · .·:• (
g H   EEZEEE
¤   ¤:;¤¢: _
U  VVV V   T

 - lg -
METROPOLITAN AREA A Economic Area 4 Economic Area 7
A Jefferson Barren Bourbon
Christian Clark
METROPOLITAN AREA B Logan Fayette
Campbell Simpson Harrison
Kenton Todd Jessamine
Trigg Mercer
METROPOLITAN AREA C Warren Scott
Boyd Woodford
A Economic Area 5
Economic Area l Adair
Ballard Allen
Calloway Casey Economic Area 8
Carlisle Clinton Carter
Fulton Cumberland Clay
Graves Lincoln Elliott
Hickman Metcalfe Estill
Marshall Monroe Greenup
McCracken Pulaski Jackson
Rockcastle Laurel
Economic Area 2 Russell Lawrence
Daviess Wayne Lee
Henderson Economic Area 6 Lewis
MCL€&H Anderson Magoffin
Union Bath Menifee
Webster Boone Morgan
~ Boyle Owsley
Economic ATGE Be Bracken Powell
Breclrirwidse carmii Rowan
Butler Fleming Wglfg
Caldwell Franklin
Crittenden Gallatin
Edmonson Garrard
Grayson Grant Economic Area 9
Eancock Henry Bell
Hopkins Madison Breathitt
Livingston Marion Floyd
Lyon 'Mason Harlan
` Muhlenberg Montgomery Johnson
Ohio Nelson Knott
Nicholas Knox
Economic Area Bb Oldham Leslie
Bullitt Owen Letcner
Green Pendleton McCreary
Hardin Robertson Martin
Hart Shelby Perry
Larue Spencer Pine
Meade Trimble Whitley
Taylor Washington
Counties of Kentucky Listed According
to Economic Areas

 - 15 -
Table 1.-- Estimated Population June 30, 1954, and Natural Increase
and Estimated Net Migration April 1, 1950 to
June 30, 1954, Kentucky Metropolitan and
Economic Areas
EXCESS Of ‘ Net Change Estimated Change in _
1950 Births over Thwush Total ropuiaticm ‘
Aygg Total pggths Migration Population C n/1[5O-6/30/54
Population 1950-1954 1950-19548 · June 30, 1954 Num- Per-
_ __>n_ .` - ber cent
b b b
State 2,944,806 208,405 209,000 2,944,000 -1,000 * _
Metropolitan
Area ·
A 484.615 36.594 11.985 533,194 48,579 10.0
B 180.450 11.146 5,379 196,975 16,525 9,2
0 49.949 3.683 -· 3.593 50.039 90 0.2
Economic Area
l 150,232 8,279 15,611 174,122 23,890 15,9
2 128.425 8,765 - 3,665 133,525 5,100 0,0
3a 189,495 8,920 -28,997 ‘ 169,418 -20,077 -10.6
3b 122,024 9,178 1,696 132,898 10,874 8.9
4 170.164 10.423 3,655 » 184,242 14,098 8,3
5 193,608 13,186 -35,195 171,599 -22,009 -11.4
6 326,191 18,789 -27,966 317,014 - 9,177 — 2,8
7 204,586 11,082 — 6,172 209,496 4,910 2.4
8 234.619 19.863 -35.638 218.844 —15.'7'?5 — 6.7 ‘
9 510,448 48,497 -106,278 452,670 -57,778 -11,3
8 Including those away in the Armed Forces and military personnel change in
Ke n tu c Ity,
b Rounded to the nearest thousand.
C Including military personnel stationed in Kentucky and excluding those in
the Armed Forces witn pre-service residence in Kentucky. `
* Less than 0.1 percent.

 - 16 -
Table 2
ESTIMATED POPULATION JUNE 30, 1954, AND NATURAL INCREASE
AND ESTIMATED NET MIGRATION, APRIL 1, 1950 T0
JUNE 30, 1954, KENTUCKY BY COUNTIES
Excess of Net change `Estimated Change in
Count? 1950 births through To tal Population
" Population over deaths , migzcatiog. Population 4[l[ 5O16[3O[ 54
1950:54 _l_950-54 June "20 , 19 54C Number Pe1·ce11t_
$5666 2,944,506 208,405 -209,0000 2,944,0000 1 1,0000 1 0.03
Adair 17,603 1,070 1 2,667 16,006 1 1,597 — 9.1
Allen 13,757 542 1 1,856 12,473 1 1,314 1 9,5
Anderson 8,984 441 1 1,318 8,107 1 877 — 9.8
Ballard 8,545 614 _ 4,321 13,480 4,935 57.8
BQITGR 28,461 1,598 1 1,403 28,656 195 0.7
Bath 10,410 772 1 2,176 9,006 1 1,404 1 13.5
2611 47,602 4,152 1 11,978 39,776 1 7,826 1 16.4
Boone 13,015 888 _ 1,207 15,110 2,095 16.1
BOUIEOH 17,752 862 4 864 17,750 1 2 1 0.01
Boyd 49.949 3.683 — 3.593 50.039 90 0.2
BOFl€ 20,532 956 1 23 21,465 933 _ 4,5
8r66k6n 8,424 284 1 746 7,962 _ 462 1 5.5
BTG&thltt 19,964 1,942 1 4,398 17,508 1 2,456 1 12.3
BTGCk1HT1d@€ 15,528 948 - 2,481 13,995 — 1,533 — 9.9
Bullitt 11,349 768 422 12,539 1,190 10.5
Eltléf 11,309 533 - 1,979 9,863 — 1,446 1 12.8
06180611 13,199 504 — 1,365 12,338 1 861 1 6,5
06116w6y 20,147 785 - 2,771 18,161 1 1,986 1 9,9
06npt611 76,196 4,355 1,507 82,058 5,862 7.7
Carlisle 6,206 216 487 6,909 703 11.3
Carroll 8,517 290 1 547 8,260 — 257 1 3.0
06r66r 22,559 1,878 1 3,384 21,053 1 1,506 1 6,7
CQSGY 17,446 1,345 1 3,382 15,409 1 2,037 1 11.7
ChTlSt1&D 42,359 3,715 17,592 63,666 21,307 50,3
Cléfk 18,898 1,213 1 387 19,724 826 4,4
0163 23,116 2,624 1 3,781 21,959 1 1,157 — 5.0
Clinton 10,605 686 — 2,576 3,715 — 1,890 1- 17,8
— CT14ZGHd€H 10,818 351 1 1,549 9,620 1 1,198 1 11.1
(b:n`0eEla11<1 9 , 309 537 1 1 , 486 8 ,410 — 899 1 9 , 7
D6v1666 57,241 4,504 1,555 63,300 6,059 10.6
A Edn6n66n 9,376 449 1 1,529 8,296 1 1,080 1 11,5
E1116tt 7,035 741 1 186 7,640 555 7.8
Bstlll 14,677 941 1 2,404 13,214 1 1,463 1 10,0
Fayétté 100,746 5,951 1 90 106,607 5,861 5,8
Fleming 11,962 599 — 1,970 10,591 — 1,371 — 11.5
E10yd 53,500 5,557 1 12,025 47,032 1 6,468 1 12.1
FT&Dkl1D 25 93] 1,220 1 364 26,789 856 3,3
Fn1t0n 13,668 797 1 2,327 12,138 1 1,530 1 11.2
0611661n 3,969 105 1 569 3,505 1 464 1 11.7
G6rr6rd 11,029 568 1 1,909 9,688 1 1,341 1 12.2

 - 17 - I
Table 2 (0c¤01¤u60)
Excess of Net Change Estimated Cnange 1H
_ 1950 birizhs through Total 1°0p‘0l80101i
Count`! Ponulation OVGT deaths, K11g1`8}bZ10g·' POPU·]·@·`bj-On C   n
__________,___1..1.........1.1950:5H1.......A6221s2L..1L2n1;%11J;Z21..181012;._;E212221
GT8Ht 9.809 376 0 610 9,575 — 230 - 2,0 ‘
066066 31,360 1,359 - 1,089 31,630 _ 270 _ 0.9
Gwayson 17,063 956 — 2,608 15,011 — 1.652 — 9.7
GIGGH 11,261 600 - 2,227 9,638 - 1,623 -10,0
GTOGDUP 20,887 1,907 - 330 26,060 , 1,573 6,3
Hancock 6,009 266 - 875 5,000 - 609 -10.1 ‘
Hardan 50,312 0,030 8,037- 63,183 _12,871 _25.6
H0:10m 71.751 6,670 +16,303 62,082 - 9,669 -13,5
Harrison 13,736 330 - 1,123 12,903 - 793 - 5,8
Harb 15.321 909 — 3,779 1 · 12,051 - 2,870 -18,7
Henderson 30,715 1,960 — 231 32,000 1,729 5,6
Henry 11.390 530 — 1.716 10,208 - 1,186 -10.0 '
Hickman 7,778 302 --1,163 6,917 - 861 -11.1
Hopkins 38.815 1,957 — 0,366. ` 36,006 - 2,009 - 6,2
0661660 13,101 1,160 - 2,659 11,606 - 1,095 -11.0
Jefferson 080,615 36,590 _ 11,985 533,190 08,579 10,0
Jnssamine 12,058 690 - 755 12,393 — 65 — 0.5
Johnson 23,806 1,853 — 3,707 - 21,952 — 1,890 — 7,9
Kenton 100,250 6,791 3,872 110,917 10,663 10.2
Kuccc 20,320 1.937 - 0,202 18,055 - 2,265 -11.1
Kncx 30,009 2,291 - 5,520 27,180 - 3,229 -10,6
Laxue 9,956 598 - 377 10,177 221 2.2
Laurel 25,797 2,070 — 3,181 20,690 - 1,107 - 0,3
L60T6nc6 10,018 820 - 2,003 13,239 - 1,179 - 8,2
Lec 8,739 805 — 1,008 8,136 - 603 - 6,9
166116 15,537 2,216 - 1,506 16,207 670 0,3
1606866 39,522 3,883 - 9,200 · 30,201 - 5,321 -13,5
Lewis 13,520 1,115 - 1,679 12,956 - 560 - 0,2 .
115cc1¤ 18,668 1,188 - 2,780 17,072 - 1,596 - 8,5
Livingston 7,180 300 - 069 7,055 - 129 - 1,8
Logan 22,335 1.079 — 3.569 19.805 ~ 2,090 -11,1
Lyon 6,853 123 - 820 , , 6,156 - 697 -10.2
McCracken 09,137 3,305 16,626 69,068 19,931 00,6
McGronxy 16,660 1,080 - 3,801 10.303 — 2,317 -13.9
McLean 10,021 583 - 1,261 9.303 - 678 6.8
Ma&1son 31,179 1,902 296 33.017 2,238 7.2 .
m6;c£:1¤ 13,839 1,580 - 0,607 10,812 - 3,027 -21,9 ·
Marion 17,212 1,653 - 2,380 16,085 - 727 - 0,2
Marshall 13,387 901 1,527 15,815 2,028 18.1
Marcin 11,677 1,208 - 1,590 11,331 - 306 - 3,0 ·
Mason 18,086 1,008 - 1,292 18,202 - 200 - 1,3
mc606 9,022 976 - 303 10,095 673 7.1
Monifeo 0,798 300 - 663 0,035 - 363 - 7,6
Moycor 10,603 607 - 539 10,711 68 0,5
mc6cc1£c 9,851 535 — 1,692 8,690 - 1,157 -11,7
Monroe 13,770 961 — 2,756 11,975 -— 1,795 -13.0
Montgomery 13,025 901 — 1,089 12,837 — 188 — 1.0
Moydan 13,620 1,051 - 3,200 11,035 - 2,189 -16,1
Muh1enluyg 3?,501 1,701 — 6,001 27,801 — 0,700 -10,5

 - 18 -
, Table 2 (Continued)
Excess of Net change Estimated Change in
COUJYGV 1950 `oirths through Total Population
“ Population over deaths, migration Population 0[1[50-6{jgj __*§1__
 
Nelson 19,521 1,895 - 3,967 17,009 -2,072 -10.6
N1cho1as 7,532 268 — 655 _ 7,105 - 387 - 5,1
Ohio 20,800 752 - 0,515 17,077 -3,763 -18,1
Oldham 11,018 653 190 11,865 807 7.7
Owen 9,755 008 2,028 8,135 -1,620 -16.6
Owsley 7,320 718 - 1,805 6,197 -1,127 -15.0
Pendleton 9.610 372 — 79 9.903 . 293 3,0
Perry 06,566 5,301 -10,786 01,081 -5,085 -11.8
Pike 81,150 8,139 -10,972 70,321 -6,833 - 8.0
Powell 6,812 506 - 829 6,529 - 283 - 0,2
Pulaski 38.052 2,701 - 6,750 30,399 +0,053 -10,5
Robertson 2,881 70 - 282 2,669 - 212 - 7,0
Rcckcastlg     "'       "'  
Rowan 12,708 933 - 2,190 11,007 -1,261 - 9.9
Russell 13,717 805 - 3,006 11,116 -2,601 -19.0
Scott 15,101 708 - 1,020 10,069 - 672 - 0.0
, Shelby 17,912 883 — 1,009 17,786 - 126 - 0.7
s1mpson 11,678 505 - 1,051 10,732 - 906 - 8.1
Spencer 6,157 050 — 1,051 5,560 — 597 — 9.7
Taylor 10,003 889 - 077 10,815 012 2.9
Todd 12,890 665 - 2,016 11,539 -1,351 -10.5
Trigg 9,683 516 - 1,797 8,002 -1,281 -13.2
Tr1mb1e 5,108 331 - 702 0,777 - 371 - 7,2
Union 10,893 1,200 - 1,580 10,517 - 376 - 2.5